|
Rylands v. Fletcher,（1866）L.R.1EX265; Court of Exchequer Chamber （1868）L.R.3H.L.
See John. G. Flemming, The Law of Torts, 8th edition, the Law Book Company Limited, 1992, p.334—337. 转引自王利明主编：《民法典·侵权责任法研究》，人民法院出版社2003年版，第165页注。
徐爱国：《英美侵权行为法学》，北京大学出版社2004年版，第138页。
关于绝对责任是否属于严格责任这一问题，在英美法学界已存在一些争议。以Holdsworth为代表的“绝对责任派”认为主观过错与侵权责任成立与否完全无关，而以Winfield为代表的“严格责任派”则认为主观过错与侵权责任仍存在最小限度上的联系。See L. B. Curzon, English Legal History, 254（2nd edition）, 1979.
相较而言，Winfield的观点更趋合理，他并未有意识地去区分两者的差别，他认为，“这仅仅是个词组选择的问题，从来就没有绝对意义上的责任，作为‘绝对责任’加以表述的Rylands v. Fletcher规则不能容纳很多例外（免责）情况，这些例外正是作为对‘绝对责任’的限制而被接受的。故，‘严格责任’似乎是更好的表述。”See Percy. H. Winfield, The Myth of Absolute Liability, 42 law Q. Rev. 37, 46, 51,（1926）.
事实上，一些权威的英美法律辞书上也都是将“严格责任”和“绝对责任”作为同一词条加以注解的。参见Bryan. A. Garner主编：《牛津现代法律英语词典》（英文第二版），法律出版社2003年版，第836页。另外还有一些学者则坚决反对将Rylands v. Fletcher一案确立的规则解读为绝对责任，See Frank. C. Woodside, Why absolute liability under Rylands V. Fletcher is absolutely wrong, University of Dayton Review vol.29:1, (2003), p.3—21.
Rylands v. Fletcher,（1866）L.R.1EX265.
“We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril; and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by shewing that escape was owing to the Plaintiff’s default; or, perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God….”
王利明主编：《民法典·侵权责任法研究》，人民法院出版社2003年版，第167页。
See Frank. C. Woodside, Why absolute liability under Rylands V. Fletcher is absolutely wrong, University of Dayton Review vol.29:1, (2003), p.7. 另外，有些人认为，原告的同意（自担风险）、第三人行为也是Rylands v. Fletcher规则中有效的抗辩事由。参见徐爱国：《英美侵权行为法学》，北京大学出版社2004年版，第142—143页。
王泽鉴：《民法学说与判例研究》（第二册），中国政法大学1998年版，第161页。
See Frank. C. Woodside, Why absolute liability under Rylands V. Fletcher is absolutely wrong, University of Dayton Review vol.29:1, (2003).
《美国法律重述》系由美国法学会（ALI）组织编写的整理性学理文件，不是正式的法律文件，并无法律拘束力。但其对美国立法、司法具有相当指导意义和参考价值，几成各州立法和法官判决依据。《美国侵权法重述》已经完成出版两次，第一次重述出版于1934年到1939年，而第二次重述整理工作开始于1965年，第三次重述整理工作已经开始，尚未完成，首先整理的重点是产品责任部分，已经提出多次报告，于1998年定稿（未完成部分称为草案，draft）。王利明主编：《民法典·侵权责任法研究》，人民法院出版社2003年版，第164页注。本文所引《重述》原文，如无另外注明，均来自前引Frank. C. Woodside所著Why absolute liability under Rylands V. Fletcher is absolutely wrong一文。另外美国法重述（Restatement）于台湾学界亦译为“美国法整编”。
文森特·R·约翰逊：《美国侵权法》，赵秀文译，中国人民大学出版社2004年版，第190—191页。
Restatement of Torts (1938) §519. activity that creates strict liability in tort:
ne who carries on an ultrahazardous activity is liable to another whose person, land or chattels the actor should recognize as likely to be harmed by the unpreventable miscarriage of the activity ultrahazadous, although the utmost care is exercise to prevent harm.
Restatement (2nd ) of Torts§520:
(a) existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or chattels of others;
(b) likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great;
(c) inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care;
(d) extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage;
(e) inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on; and
(f) extent to which its value to the community is overweighed by its dangerous attributes.
Restatement (3rd ) of Torts §20(b) (1st tent. Draft 2001):
(1) the activity creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; and
(2) the activity is not a matter of common usage.
另外，基于上引两条之规定，美国学界有人认为事实上，《重述》并没有完全将Rylands v. Fletcher规则在美国进行成文法律化，《重述》中所规制的严格责任类型基本上纯粹属于美国普通法的实践所创。See Frank. C. Woodside, Why absolute liability under Rylands V. Fletcher is absolutely wrong, University of Dayton Review vol.29:1, (2003), p.18—19, 20.
参见文森特·R·约翰逊：《美国侵权法》，赵秀文译，中国人民大学出版社2004年版，第十五章（产品责任）。
|
